SC relief for Kerala journalist: Remarks in ‘bad taste’ but not offence under SC/ST Act

The bench, also comprising Justice P S Narasimha, was hearing Skaria’s appeal against Kerala High Court denying him anticipatory bail in the case.

Skaria was booked under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST Act, and Section 120 of Kerala Police Act for airing a news item that allegedly defamed CPI(M) legislator P V Sreenijin.

Although Skaria contended that the news item did not refer to Sreenijin’s caste, the HC ruled that “going by the wording of Section 3(1)(r), reference to the caste name of the victim is not necessary for attracting the offence” under SC/ST Act.

The CJI, however, observed, “The HC has made such a strong order. That’s why I said let me go and see the HC order. Sometimes the stronger the order, the more you feel the remarks you need to look at a little more carefully.”

Appearing for Srinijin, senior advocate V Giri said Skaria’s comments were not just against Sreenijin’s father-in-law — former Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan — but there were seven other cases against him. The CJI said, “Father-in-law, judiciary…that may be in bad taste, but certainly it can’t be an offence under SC/ST Act.” He said he had seen the transcript of the news item and “there is not a whisper of an allegation under SC/ST Act in it”.

“There is,” Giri argued and said the news item tried to identify Sreenijin as MLA of Kunnathunad, a reserved constituency. “Every person who hears it will know he is a member of the Scheduled Caste,” he said.

But the CJI said “merely because your client is a member of SC and he said something nasty to your client, this has no implication on the caste status at all…. You may pursue whatever other remedies you have…”.

Giving a hypothetical example, the CJI said, “Suppose A, who is a member of Scheduled Caste, has a contract with B. A takes Rs 25 lakh but does not return it. B calls A a cheat. Does that involve an offence under” relevant provisions of SC/ST Act.

Giri responded that it would depend on whether he had the intention.

Justice Narasimha asked, “How do you assume intention?”

“On the face of that statement, is there anything even remotely to suggest he has humiliated you on the ground that you belong to a Scheduled Caste,” the CJI asked.

Referring to the statement, he said, “I must say it’s a very colourful statement.”

Giri replied, “He keeps doing it to several other persons. Somebody will have to bell the cat at some point.” To this, the CJI said, “The point is, should we be teaching him a lesson because we don’t approve of his statements by sending him to jail? That’s very harsh.”

He said, “We thoroughly disapprove of his statements but jail is not the answer…we totally agree with you it is in bad taste.”

Turning to senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, who appeared for Skaria, the CJI added, “He is a senior journalist…counsel him — tell him even the bench felt that while protecting him. Some level of discourse is always good.”

As Giri said the accused was not cooperating with the probe, the CJI said, “You can call him. This is not an offence where money has to be recovered or a weapon of offence is at large.”